The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the possessor of the building B in Suwon-si.

Any landowner or person concerned, or any other person holding a right to the land to be expropriated or used or goods thereon, who is not included in the landowner or person concerned, shall deliver or transfer the relevant land or goods to the project operator by no later than the commencement

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not deliver the said building by the designated date, even though there was a duty to deliver the said building to the “C Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association” until November 7, 2019, which is the starting date of expropriation by the ruling of the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal around September 23, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint (C head of the cooperative), written authorization for the establishment of a redevelopment project partnership, public notice for authorization for the implementation of a C redevelopment project, written adjudication, cash deposit, and

1. Article 95-2 Subparag. 2 and Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) regarding criminal facts and the selection of fines

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion, Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence of sentence (see, e.g., the fact that the Defendant transferred the pertinent real estate to the redevelopment cooperative of this case and removed the illegal state due to the transfer of the pertinent real estate, and that there was no criminal power before the Defendant committed the instant crime). In addition, the Defendant raised an objection against the ruling of acceptance due to the Defendant’s failure to receive reasonable compensation, and thus, there was an inevitable reason not to deliver the real estate until the procedure is completed. Moreover, the